HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive

    

399 Fremont Street in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • San Francisco Skyscraper Diagram
San Francisco Projects & Construction Forum
            
View Full Map

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2007, 3:53 AM
briankendall briankendall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 72
Demo Permit posted on both buildings on 5/24

When I was walking by 355 and 375 Fremont on Saturday May 25th both buildings had the their own demo notice. The notice for 375 might have been torn down. It was just an 8.5x11 notice as I remember, maybe I'm wrong and it was bigger. Either way it was definitely there on the Harrison Street side.
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2007, 6:54 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
^^^The notice for 375 was there today. 355 and 375 are the two entrances to the same building in the photo I posted above--and there was a notice that included both. There was also a separate notice for the red auto repair building next door--but none for the corner "Apostleship" building.

Even though 375 will apparently be the address of the new highrise that will include the corner lot, it is not the address of the existing corner building.
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2007, 7:30 PM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 652
Some larger renderings I found on http://www.keatingkhang.com/



     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2007, 8:25 PM
paulsfca paulsfca is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 12
Talking

hey...thanks for the renderings! looks great! can't wait for the groundbreaking!
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2007, 10:59 PM
nequidnimis nequidnimis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 507
Thanks for these beautiful reminders of what Rincon Hill once looked like...
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2007, 11:12 PM
craeg's Avatar
craeg craeg is offline
Proud upstanding member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,501
I propose that we immediately start a save the trash strewn parking lot league. If we band together we can halt all construction on all vacant parcels on rincon hill. We will not stop until all vacant, underused parcels are memorialized for all future generations to not live on.
SAVE the TRASH STREWN EMPTY LOTS!
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2007, 12:52 AM
nequidnimis nequidnimis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 507
The Watermark shows development on a moderate scale on Rincon Hill is economically viable.

Last edited by nequidnimis; Jun 12, 2007 at 1:05 AM.
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2007, 5:25 AM
craeg's Avatar
craeg craeg is offline
Proud upstanding member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,501
So its the height of the building that you disagree with?
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2007, 5:44 AM
nequidnimis nequidnimis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 507
In the case of One Rincon Hill, which I happen not to care for, it is the lack of architectural distinction. The height and prominent location just compound the problem.
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2007, 6:42 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by nequidnimis View Post
In the case of One Rincon Hill, which I happen not to care for, it is the lack of architectural distinction. The height and prominent location just compound the problem.
But you like the Watermark? Enough to promote it as a good model of new development? Oh, man...the Watermark already looks like something slapped together on the cheap in the mid-20th century that has weathered too many winters. One Rincon may not be "distinguished" in everyone's eyes, but it is pleasantly modern in an old town, sculptural in a skyline of flat planes, glassy in a town with too many concrete boxes, and suitably tall for a parcel in downtown San Francisco. For once.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2007, 5:07 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
^^^Holy moley, Fflint! Couldn't agree with you more!

Even for its purpose, the Watermark design was dubious. If they had built it taller, maybe they would have had sufficient funds to proceed with the cruise terminal which it was supposed to go a long way toward paying for and which the city's economy needs.

Last edited by BTinSF; Jun 12, 2007 at 6:31 PM.
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2007, 5:31 PM
craeg's Avatar
craeg craeg is offline
Proud upstanding member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,501
How fitting - the watermark sits overlooking an empty weed surrounded parking lot!
I'd give the watermark a 6 out of 10. It's squat and boxy despite its height and fairly unremarkable in its architecture - in other words perfect for san francisco.
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2007, 6:16 AM
nequidnimis nequidnimis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 507
See my post on One Rincon Hill in its own thread in the Construction Forum. Thanks.
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2007, 8:20 AM
OaktownRush OaktownRush is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 10
I really like the building they are tearing down to put the high-rise there, that warehouse could be converted into some really nice live-work lofts. Oh well, I dont think I'll find too many sympathizers here

I just wish they could save that building too, its got nice detail.
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2007, 3:08 PM
FourOneFive FourOneFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by briankendall View Post
I am pretty sure the vacant lot to the left of 375 Fremont is going to be a low rise condominium project. I thought thats what I read on a Planning Notice board that was posted at one point on the property last year. I think it said 8 stories but can't be sure. To the left of the lot is the seemingly on-hold 325 Fremont tower.
this is a rendering of the 333 fremont project that will be built directly next to the 375-399 fremont project. it is a fully entitled project consisting of 80-83 units (8 floors).



i really do hope projects like this are completed with the high profile residential towers because these smaller scale buildings will truly complete the neighborhood.
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2007, 3:31 PM
roadwarrior's Avatar
roadwarrior roadwarrior is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by FourOneFive View Post
this is a rendering of the 333 fremont project that will be built directly next to the 375-399 fremont project. it is a fully entitled project consisting of 80-83 units (8 floors).



i really do hope projects like this are completed with the high profile residential towers because these smaller scale buildings will truly complete the neighborhood.
I like the look of this building. The only problem is that these units facing Fremont will likely have a view of the ugly PG&E cement substation.
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2007, 5:06 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
^^^They'll certainly be able to see the substation but they won't be right across from it. There's room for another Metropolitan-height highrise at the corner of Folsom. And these units should cost a lot less than the view units in the nearby high-rises--more housing for "the rest of us".
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2007, 5:27 PM
roadwarrior's Avatar
roadwarrior roadwarrior is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 446
Yeah, I'd definitely consider that building. What do you mean about another building on the corner of Folsom? Isn't that where the old buildings have been converted to trendy lofts? I thought those were staying.
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2007, 5:29 PM
nequidnimis nequidnimis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 507
Great building. Too bad the developer is trying to get out of the project and sell the land and entitlements (see the 45 Lansing St. thread for more info). Perhaps this type of project is challenging to develop on the new Rincon Hill. Although, the main problem with Rincon Hill is all the traffic. And we are not talking about Park Avenue traffic. We are talking about the approach to the Bay Bridge and the Southbound freeway from downtown. If I lived there, I would want to live way above it. But it would still leave unresolved the question of how to cross the street, and getting somewhere else for a stroll.

Last edited by nequidnimis; Jun 13, 2007 at 6:38 PM.
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2007, 7:54 PM
roadwarrior's Avatar
roadwarrior roadwarrior is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 446
I walked by 399 today and saw 2 guys opening up the boards with an electric drill and looking around. Perhaps they're doing the final measurements before demolition.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:23 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.